National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: Testimony (Condoleezza Rice) (External Links)

The following are External Links related to National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: Testimony (Condoleezza Rice) / Condoleezza Rice.

Dated Material Pre-Testimony

• Joshua Micah Marshall, "Bush's executive-privilege two-step," February 27, 2002: "His documents are too precious to give Congress, but those of the previous administration aren't worth protecting -- as long as they make Bill Clinton look bad."
• Transcript: Interview With Condoleezza Rice, Lou Dobbs Tonight/CNN, March 18, 2004.
• Matthew Yglesias, "The Truth About Condi," TAPPED, March 19, 2004.
• John Nichols, "When Rupert Murdoch Calls...," The Nation, March 21, 2004: On Friday, "Rice took time out of the middle of the day to address a secretive gathering that included global media mogul Rupert Murdoch and top executives from television networks, newspapers and other media properties owned by Murdoch's News Corporation conglomerate. Rice spoke at some length via satellite to Murdoch and his cronies, who had gathered at the posh Ritz Carlton Hotel in Cancun Mexico, according to reports published in the British press. ... 'Although she is not there in person, the presence of Ms. Rice underlines the importance of Rupert Murdoch's news operations to the Bush administration, which may face growing criticism that it led the country into war on false pretences ahead of November's presidential election,' the Guardian account of the Cancun gathering explained."
• "the question is, do they care about terrorism now?," Sisyphus Shrugged, March 22, 2004: "Condoleeza Rice has refused to testify to the 9-11 Commission if she has to do it under oath because she doesn't want to and she won't won't won't and they can't make her."
• "Rice rejects Clarke charges," CNN.com, March 22, 2004: Rice accused former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke of a "retrospective rewriting of the history."
• Mimi Hall, Andrea Stone and Judy Keen, "Rice's refusal bothers commissioners," USA Today, March 23, 2004: "Members of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks complained angrily Tuesday that Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, has refused to testify publicly about the Bush administration's counterterrorism policy yet has appeared on several TV programs to defend the administration."
• John Greeley, "High level Bush Administration officials appear before 9/11 Commission, why is Condoleezza Rice refusing? What is she hiding?," Intervention Magazine, March 23, 2004.
• Ryan Lizza, "Rewriting History," The New Republic, March 24, 2004.
• Steve Holland, "Rice Accuses Clarke of Conflicting Stories," Reuters, March 24, 2004.
• Condoleezza Rice, "Interview of the National Security Advisor by Network Correspondents. Office of the National Security Advisor," March 24, 2004 (4:43 PM EST). Also "Interview of the National Security Advisor by a Roundtable of Wire and Print Journalists", PR Newswire, March 24, 2004.
• Barbara Slavin and Steven Komarow, "Clarke's charges touch off feud," USA Today, March 24, 2004; updated March 25, 2004.
• "Rice To Return To 9/11 Panel?," CBS News, March 25, 2004.
• "No Clean Hands," CBS News, March 25, 2004.
• Dan Froomkin, "Exceptions to the Rules," Washington Post, March 25, 2004.
• Poster Double Trouble, "Bush Pisses Off Wrong Guy," Bad Attitudes, March 25, 2004: "So National Security Advisor Rice is left frantically declassifying documents and running out to the cameras to try to refute Clarke. Which makes her refusal to testify to the 9/11 committee look phony.
• Lawrence M. O'Rourke, "Clarke, Rice trade charges on terrorist response," SacBee, March 25, 2004: "Two hours later, at the White House, a furious Rice shot back, blasting Clarke's comment as 'scurrilous.' Rice, who was Clarke's boss, accused him of offering differing versions of his role in providing a plan to combat terrorism. 'This story has so many twists and turns, he needs to get his story straight,' she said."
• Sean Aday, "He Said, She Lied. The media in an imbalanced world," The Gadflyer, March 25, 2004.
• "Text of Rice letter to 9/11 commission," MSNBC, March 25, 2004: "Full text of a letter sent to the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in which the White House offers to make national security adviser Condoleezza Rice available for a private meeting," signed by Alberto R. Gonzales.
• Joshua Micah Marshall, "Condoleeza Rice," Talking Points Memo, March 25, 2004: "Rice truly has the best of all worlds. She hangs back at the White House shooting spit balls at Clarke and the rest of them. But she doesn't have to back anything up because she doesn't have to testify under oath or get questioned."
• "America must hear from Condi Rice," New York Daily News Op-Ed, March 25, 2004.
• Elisabeth Bumiller and Philip Shenon, "Panel Hasn't Heard From Official It Wants Most," New York Times, March 26, 2004: "As she prepares to leave her job at the end of the year, Ms. Rice, the president's national security adviser, now finds herself at the center of a political storm, furiously defending both the White House and her own reputation."
• Adam Nagourney and Richard W. Stevenson, "Rice Is Agreeable to Return for More of 9/11 Panel's Queries," New York Times, March 26, 2004.
• Mike Allen, "White House Fights Clarke Fire With Fire. Bush Aides Rush to Head Off Damage," Washington Post, March 26, 2004.
• Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank, "Neither Silent Nor a Public Witness. Presidential Adviser Rice Becomes a 9/11 Focal Point as Contradictions Appear, Washington Post, March 26, 2004.
• Center for American Progress, "Condoleezza Rice's Credibility Gap," March 26, 2004: "A point-by-point analysis of how one of America's top national security officials has a severe problem with the truth."
• Center for American Progress, "Fact Check: Condi Rice's 60 Minutes Interview," March 28, 2004.
• Philip Shenon and Richard W. Stevenson, "9/11 Panel Wants Rice Under Oath in Any Testimony," New York Times, March 30, 2004: "... because of discrepancies between her statements and those made in sworn testimony by President Bush's former counterterrorism chief."
• "Rice to testify in public, under oath. Bush, Cheney also will go before full 9/11 panel," MSNBC, March 30, 2004.
• Philip Shenon and Richard W. Stevenson, "9/11 Panel Wants Rice Under Oath in Any Testimony," New York Times, March 30, 2004: "... because of discrepancies between her statements and those made in sworn testimony by President Bush's former counterterrorism chief."
• Maura Reynolds and Greg Miller, "Deal Sought on Rice Testimony. The White House works to reach a compromise that would satisfy the Sept. 11 commission," Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2004.
• "White House U-turn on 9/11 inquiry," BBC/UK, March 30, 2004.
• "Rice to testify in public, under oath. Bush, Cheney also will go before full 9/11 panel," MSNBC, March 30, 2004.
• David Morgan, "White House Gives OK to Rice Testimony on 9/11," Reuters, March 30, 2004.
• Suzanne Goldenberg, "White House moves to defuse Rice row," Guardian/UK, March 30, 2004.
• Maura Reynolds, Greg Miller and James Gerstenzang, "In About-Face, Rice to Testify Before 9/11 Panel," Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2004.
• Jonathan E. Kaplan, "Hill pressure tipped the balance on Rice. GOP lawmakers told White House stance 'untenable'," The Hill, March 31, 2004.
• Kenneth T. Walsh, "In The Eye Of The Storm. Why President Bush's closest aide has just become a lightning rod," USNews.com, April 5, 2004 (Edition).
• Paul Sperry, "Is Fix in at 9/11 Commission?", antiwar.com, March 31, 2004.
• "Rice expected to testify next week. 9/11 panel will also hear separately from Bush, Cheney," NBC/MSNBC, March 31, 2004.
• Robin Wright, "Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism. Rice Speech Cited Missile Defense," Washington Post, April 1, 2004. See Excerpts from Rice's Speeches: "From the text of a speech White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to give on the evening of Sept. 11, 2001, at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University," etc.
• "Condoleezza's Crimes," Black Commentator, April 1, 2004.
• Doyle McManus, "Rice's Testimony May Be Audition. A strong showing before the Sept. 11 panel could land her a Cabinet post in a second Bush term," Los Angeles Times, April 5, 2004.
• "Strategy on Rice. Chief of 9/11 commission conveys how the national security adviser will be questioned," Newsday, April 5, 2004: "Thomas Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, told NBC's "Meet the Press" that the commission would probe Rice for any contradictions between her recollection of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policy-making process and those of former national security council counterterrorism aide Richard Clarke. ... Rice will be before the committee for two-and-a-half hours, 'as long a session as we've had with any witness,' Kean said. ... 'We expect it to be very exciting,' Kean said, 'because we want to know so much. . . . We want to know what she heard and what she knew, and of course what differences there may be between her, Mr. Clarke and a number of other people we've heard.'"
• Charles Lane, "Rice to Face Questions on Clarke. 9/11 Panel to Look For Contradictions," Washington Post, April 5, 2004. Compare this to the Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank April 4, 2004, Washington Post article "Framework of Clarke's Book Is Bolstered."
• Hope Yen, "Bush Says He Lacked Info on Sept. 11,", AP, April 5, 2004: "President Bush said Monday ... National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice 'knows exactly what took place and will lay out the facts' when she testifies Thursday before the 10-member bipartisan panel. 'I'm looking forward to people hearing her,' he said."
• Joshua Micah Marshall, Talking Points Memo, April 6, 2004: "Finally we have an example of White House stonewalling of the 9/11 Commission in which all the dross of bogus national security flimflam and the impurities of dishonest classification mumbojumbo have been burned away."
• Mike Allen and Dan Eggen, "Rice to Cite Pre-9/11 Mentality, Officials Say. Testimony to Defend Bush, Rebut Clarke's Criticism of Administration's Anti-Terror Efforts," Washington Post, April 7, 2004: "Rice now carries the burden of defending her reputation while also trying to help Bush's reelection campaign preserve its credibility on an issue that once was the president's greatest strength."
• Steve Holland, "Rice Plans No Apology in 9/11 Testimony," Reuters, April 7, 2004.
• David Sirota, "Rice Lies, 'Revises' Her Lies, And Then Repeats the Same Original Lies Again. This is Standard Procedure in the Bush Administration. We Have Entered Some Sort of Orwellian Parallel Universe," BuzzFlash News Analysis, April 7, 2004.
• Dan Eggen, "Rice Will Face Ex-Colleague At 9/11 Hearing. Panel Director Comes Under Scrutiny for Ties to Bush Adviser," Washington Post, April 8, 2004: Philip D. Zelikow "worked for Rice on the National Security Council staff during the administration of George H.W. Bush and went on to write a book with Rice on German reunification that drew heavily on classified documents both had access to during their time in government. In December 2000, Rice brought Zelikow back to the White House to aid in the transition to the current administration. ... During that month-long stint, Zelikow sat in on briefings by counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke and others, made recommendations for changes in the NSC's structure and proposed language for security directives having to do with terrorism, according to those familiar with his position."
• Walter Pincus, "Panel to Ask About Pre-9/11 Planning. Rice to Be Questioned About Cole Attack," Washington Post, April 8, 2004.
• Julian Borger, "Rice faces accusation on eve of testimony," Guardian/UK, April 8, 2004: "On the eve of the national security adviser's public appearance today to defend the Bush administration's record before the commission studying the September 11 attacks, Gary Hart, a former Democratic presidential candidate who co-chaired an earlier three-year public study of the threats to US security in the 21st century, told the Guardian his warning had been ignored. ... 'She [Rice] said: 'I'll discuss it with the vice-president',' Mr Hart said; but he felt the response was a brush-off." See "Condoleezza Rice Warned Sept. 6 About Imminent Terror Attack," NewsMax, May 29, 2002: "After giving a speech on the terrorist threat in Montreal on Sept. 5, Hart said he requested an urgent meeting with Dr. Rice in Washington. ... 'I said to her, 'You must move more quickly on homeland security. An attack is going to happen.' ... 'That was Sept. 6, 2001,' Hart told WABC, without characterizing Dr. Rice's reaction. ... The night before, Hart said, he issued the same warning to an air transportation group in Canada."
• Sidney Blumenthal, "Some more questions for Condoleezza. Bush's national security adviser sabotaged the road map to peace," Guardian/UK, April 8, 2004.
• William Rivers Pitt, "20 Questions for Condi," Truthout, April 8, 2004.
• Laura Flanders, "Never Apologize," Tom Paine, April 8, 2004: "Don't expect Condoleezza Rice to apologize for messing up on 9/11. She hasn't apologized yet for getting it wrong on the collapse of the Soviet Union."
• Michael Isikoff, "A New Window on the War Room. Condi Rice heads for the Hill as the battle over blame for 9/11 is joined," Newsweek, April 12, 2004 (Issue).

Dated Material Post-Testimony

• Hope Yen, "Rice Defends Bush Pre-9/11 Terror Plans," AP, April 8, 2004.
• "'No silver bullet' to prevent 9/11 attacks: Rice," CBC News (Canada), April 8, 2004.
• Howard Kurtz, "Rice Testimony Is Now History," Washington Post, April 8, 2004.
• "He Said, She Said," The Economist, April 8, 2004.
• David J. Sirota and Christy Harvey and Judd Legum, "Condi Gets A Reality Check," Center for American Progress, April 8, 2004: Point-by-point, claim-by-claim analysis complete with related news links.
• John D. Podesta, "Regarding the Testimony of Condoleezza Rice Before the 9/11 Commission," Center for American Progress, April 8, 2004.
• Howard Fineman, "A Bureaucrat Testifies. Condoleezza Rice didn't embarrass anyone. But her appearance certainly won't help George Bush win re-election," Newsweek, April 8, 2004.
• "Claim vs. Fact: Rice's Q&A Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission," Center for American Progress, April 8, 2004.
• Regis T. Sabol, "Rice Filibusters 9/11 Commission. To the tune of Don't Blame Me, Bush's National Security Adviser claimed there was no silver bullet to stop 9/11," Intervention Magazine, April 8, 2004.
• Wayne Madsen, "Rice (and the Record) Proves It. Bush Knew, But Failed to Act," CounterPunch, April 8, 2004.
• Fred Kaplan, "Condi Lousy. Why Rice is a bad national security adviser," Slate, April 8, 2004: "The key moment came an hour into the hearing, when former Watergate prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste took his turn at asking questions. Up to this point, Rice had argued that the Bush administration could not have done much to stop the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Yes, the CIA's sirens were sounding all summer of an impending strike by al-Qaida, but the warnings were of an attack overseas. ... Ben-Veniste brought up the much-discussed PDB--the President's Daily Briefing by CIA Director George J. Tenet--of Aug. 6, 2001. For the first time, he revealed the title of that briefing: Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States." See August 6, 2001, President's Daily Briefing Memo for details.
• Catherine Austin Fitts, "Open Letter to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice," Global Research, April 9, 2004: "Point #1: You are a liar."
• Derrick Z. Jackson, "A defense full of holes," Boston Globe, April 9, 2004.
• Mark Matthews, "Claims, discrepancies yield more questions," Balimore Sun, April 9, 2004: "Bush didn't have to read beyond the title of an intelligence document he received while on vacation in Texas on Aug. 6, 2001, to know that Osama bin Laden's ambition went beyond overseas attacks - which were the focus of most of what Rice said was the terrorist threat information received up to that point."
• Garance Franke-Ruta, "Who Vetted This?," TAPPED, April 9, 2004: "In her speech to the 9-11 Commission yesterday, Condoleezza Rice seemed to be suggesting that President Bush will be in power until the war against terrorism is won, and that this may take several decades. ... 'Since [Sept. 11], America has been at war and under President Bush's leadership, we will remain at war until the terrorist threat to our nation has ended,' said Rice in her prepared -- and, presumably, carefully vetted -- opening remarks (emphasis added). ... Huh?"